“This site is dedicated to preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Slaughtering the Constitution

What you ask is the Slaughter Rule? Simply stated, it is the US House of Representatives claiming that they passed a Senate bill without actually having done so. It is a method, contemplated by the Democrats, to pass the healthcare bill. It is unconstitutional and it is illegal.

Mark Levin has rightly been calling it an attack on the US Constitution. What does the Constitution say?

The Constitution of the United States:

Article I, Section 7 says “the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.”

House Democratic leaders say they are prepared to take up the Senate health care bill, even though it appears it cannot be passed simultaneously with a second bill that would make corrections to it.

I talked to Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, the panel that will be responsible for formatting the way the House debates and votes on health care reform. Congress Daily reported last week the Slaughter was considering a rule that would deem the Senate bill passed only after the House approved the second bill that makes corrections to it. The Senate parliamentarian, however, ruled on Thursday that the Senate can only take up a reconciliation bill if the original Senate bill is first signed into law.

"We knew that," Slaughter told The Examiner. "That's not news to me. We always believed we had to have a signed bill before we reconcile." Slaughter would not say what strategy the House would employ to pass the bill. "We're looking at a lot of things," she said, adding that the Senate parliamentarian, "cannot rule on what we have to do over here."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also acknowledged Friday that the House would have to pass the Senate's $1 trillion health care bill first before either chamber can take up the second bill, which would remove the Senate legislation's tax on expensive insurance policies and some special deals cut for certain senators.

Pelosi left up in the air whether the bill would have to be signed into law, though she acknowledged a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian Thursday that it would.

"We'll pass the Senate bill, once we pass it the president signs it, or doesn't," Pelosi said. "People would rather he wait until the Senate act..."

Pelosi said the ruling by the parliamentarian, provided at the request of Senate GOP leaders, "isn't going to make any difference except maybe the mood that people are in. The fact is, once that it is passed in the House it is going to be the law of the land."

House Democrats have been staunchly opposed to passing the Senate bill first because they worry the corrections bill will never pass in that chamber.

When asked about that opposition by a reporter at her news conference Friday, Pelosi said, "That's another thing," but she suggested her rank-and-file would ultimately vote for the bill because it would expand health care coverage to 31 million people.

Washington (CNN) -- Steve Hildebrand was one of the top advisers who helped put President Obama in office, but he has a stark warning for his old friends at the White House and on Capitol Hill."I think that there is a real shot we [Democrats] are going to get slaughtered in elections this fall if we aren't leading the efforts to reform Washington," Hildebrand said. "We campaigned in '06 and '08, and if voters don't see that change, we haven't lived up to that promise."Hildebrand, a highly regarded strategist in Democratic circles who helped deliver the crucial state of Iowa for Obama, is an outside consultant pushing issues such as campaign finance and lobbying reform.He came to the White House on Wednesday for a quiet meeting with the president's senior adviser, David Axelrod, to express a fear that Republicans are seizing the high ground on cleaning up Washington, on issues such as the ethics probe of Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York.

"...before either chamber can take up the second bill, which would remove the Senate legislation's tax on expensive insurance policies and some special deals cut for certain senators."

Think they misreported the Cadillac Plan change.It is my understanding that it is only removed for those making less than $250K.

IOW...All those Cadillac plans for a bunch of previously outraged union stooges will be shielded from the Cadillac tax, whereas non-union small businesses will receive punishment appropriate to their sinfullness - pursuit of PROFITS!

It's hard to say where the HC bill sits right now. And frankly all we can do is wait.

With regard to the "write a letter" campaign Doug posted in an earlier thread, it's meaningless at this point (unless you've got a minimum of $100 million to send in with it). The Dems are determined to pass it and the GOP will oppose.

I too think they will get something passed. Or did. Now I'm not sure.

If Pelosi had the votes right now it would already be passed. And things are getting kind of tricky for Nancy.

Supposedly, they have written off Stupak and those who oppose the current bill due to the abortion issue (although from some comments by Stupak it appears Nancy got some of those people to come over to her side).

However, if the Dems decide to ignore existing rules on reconciliation they could be opening up another problem for themselves on the count. There were already Dems who didn't like the idea of using reconciliation anyway. If the rules are changed to make reconciliation meaningless, the process may become objectionable to others.

I would assume that the Dems are counting on HC being such a massive program that any future GOP congress would be unable to rewind it once it is passed. However, even if true, changing the reconciliation rules as indicated on Deuce's post would be a game changer for all future legislation.

"In a giant auction, the federal government has agreed to sell for pennies on the dollar most of the 120,000 formaldehyde-tainted trailers it bought nearly five years ago for Hurricane Katrina victims. But the sale of the units, perhaps the most visible symbol of the government's bungled response to the hurricane, has triggered a new round of charges that it is endangering future buyers for years to come.

"Consumer advocates and environmentalists are outraged that the government resold products it deemed unsafe to live in, saying warning stickers attached to the units will not keep people from misusing them.

Doug, you're just being an asshole. Welcome back; I hope you weren't sick. I missed you pounding on my head every morning.

They're "loans," Doug. If our country is going to continue to enjoy this extremely high living standard, compared to the rest of the world, we're going to have to have a very highly qualified workforce.

We've got to keep pushing our productivity to the moon. That can only be done if our workers are highly trained, and educated.

I have absolutely no idea what's in the "Student Loan" Bill, and why they want to change the program. And, neither do you. As a result, I'm neither fer it, or agin it. I merely stated that I think the program is important, and that I hope they don't "muck it up."

I suspect that those FEMA trailers simply need a good "airing out" which I doubt that they have ever gotten. New construction materials particularly adhesives "off gas" for a while. Usually good ventilation is all that is needed.

Obama has been dancing around 52-48%. That implies there are 48% of the US population that believes that the only way for them to get ahead is through government support programs.

Legalize the resident emigrants and he has a solid majority.

I need to think about this some more, but I have a theory that the system is institutionalizing this disenfranchisement in ways unintended.

For instance, credit scores for employment. How does an unemployed or underemployed person break out of that cycle? They cannot buy a car, rent an apartment, get a job, get a credit card because they do not have good credit.

They get payday loans at 400% APR to make it from pay check to paycheck when they have a job.

I was listening to c-span and evidently every military base is surrounded by these payday loan people. There numbers have expanded from a few thousand to 20,000 in ten years.

Start adding these things up, and the upward mobility open to Americans in the fifties , sixties and seventies doesn't look so good, except for union members and government workers.

When 51% or more of the population supports an Obama or worse, somebody more competent than Obama , we have a problem.

And, let's face it, people will, virtually 100% of the time "vote their pocketbook." To do anything else is, usually, downright irrational.

About 50% of the population votes for the party that they perceive as being best for the poorest 50%.

If you were a poor man, and wanted your children to have the opportunity to get an advanced education you would vote for the party that is going to help make that possible.

If you were a poor person, and struggled with being able to Afford (or, even get) healthcare your whole life you would vote for the party that championed Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP. To do anything else wouldn't make any sense.

Any elderly Black woman that voted for the party that tried to declare ketchup a vegetable for her grandchild's school lunch would have to have her head examined.

During the Bush years, the left claimed that the constitution was being shredded, now the right is concerned. To this wingnut, no one can shred the Constitution like "Progressives" who have shown a propensity to lie, lie, lie when it advances their agenda.

This morning I got a report from a gentleman who recently made a trip to Cuba. Basically, Cuba is divided into the Communist apparachik "haves and the have nots." They confirm that Michael Moore, Chief Propagandist, lied about the quality of Cuban healthcare which is the typical two tier system.*****************************I worry that our "new normal" of reduced revenues and budget cuts (see Allen's reference to rising tuitions in Georgia) will also lead to a two class society.

We have Always had a "two-class" society, Whit. How many rich kids did You know that went to Vietnam?

One class got college deferments, the other class got drafted.

One class owned the cotton gin (or, at least, the General Store,) and the other picked the cotton.

Sure, tuitions are rising; but, more and more poorer kids are getting to Go to college. The "rich" are paying more, and the poor are getting some help.

But, the funny thing is, the "rich" end up benefitting, also. They end up with a better workforce, and a more prosperous citizenry to buy their products.

A lot of old life-long Republicans like myself, once they're retired, look back on it, and realize that a lot of the things that they railed against turned out to be to their benefit as much as anyone's.

Reduced Revenues aren't the "new normal," though. We're in a Recession. We damned near had a Depression. Revenues are already picking up again. Something the Republicans aren't, for some reason, mentioning.

This morning I got a report from a gentleman who recently made a trip to Cuba. Basically, Cuba is divided into the Communist apparachik "haves and the have nots." They confirm that Michael Moore, Chief Propagandist, lied about the quality of Cuban healthcare which is the typical two tier system.

- whit

Maybe it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway:

Michael Moore - playing the fool or playing his would-be audience for same - reported what he was shown by his minders. Claims regarding Cuban health care that have the intent of burnishing the Castro cred have long been torn down.

Over the past decade especially, the majority of the population has had to confront such a severe deterioration of an already meager standard of living that hard currency goes begging for food and other necessities.

Any and all declarations regarding the well-being of the common Cuban and even the remotely benign nature of the political cult that continues to govern him/her, issues from either internal propaganda or foreign fantasy.

Given even the relatively recent cultivation of tourism, they are in dire straights, kept afloat only by a system of remittance that is itself grotesquely exploitative.

"But, the funny thing is, the "rich" end up benefitting, also. They end up with a better workforce, and a more prosperous citizenry to buy their products."

No denying that the rich end up benefitting. However, whether the "more prosperous" citizenry is better off is more of a philosophical question.

It's our old argument, Ruf. You point out all the things people have these days that they didn't have before. I point out the costs that aren't usually mentioned.

Today the two income family is recognized as more than just common. The number of women in the workforce currently exceeds the number of men. This was not the case 30 - 40 years ago. Median income has remained flat over the past thirty years. Even so, if you double houshold income by doubling the people working, the natives can afford to buy a few more trinkets.

Then there are the socioeconomic implications of not having the mother at home with the kids which opens up an entirely different discussion.

With regard to your argument that we are much better off because of all the "stuff" we have now that we didn't have before, I'd have to question that too.

Somethings are obvious. If you have two people working, your going to need two cars.

Others are not so clear. One of my degrees was in marketing and I seem to recall the old product life cycle meme, introduction, growth, maturation, and decline. Some items like Coke and Pepsi because of their unique taste have been able to prolong that life cycle. Others, like TV's fall under the sway of Moore's law. However, Moore's law merely shortens the product life cycle dramatically.

Not too many years ago a large screen HD TV could cost $5,000. Last year you could get them for about $500. Next they will be coming out with 3D tv's. However, while you can argue that the quality of the tv's are much "better" today that also involves our perception.

If the large screen, HD TV had never been invented, people would be spending the same $500 on an old style vacuum tube TV. If they weren't aware that the HDTV were possible, would they feel deprived? Would it affect their lives all that much?

As for productivity, much of what we have seen in the past 30 - 40 years has been the result of improvements in IT, automation, robotics, etc. which have benefitted from Moore's Law principles. However, some argue that there is a limit to how much we can expect under current trends. For instance, circuits are down to the microscopic level. At the atomic level they become so small that the components simply melt away (kind of the peak-oil of cuircuit technology). Which means that at some point we'll need a new type of circuit to keep the productivity moving.

The optimist will say something will come along. That's possible but it doesn't address the jobs that are disappearing or paying less than they used to.

BTW, Doug, I'd just bet you that whole "welfare broke up the black family" meme is a canard. I'd love to see the statistics that back that up. This isn't a challenge to you. I know that is the accepted storyline. It just suddenly struck me that I don't really believe it.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.